Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Basic Network setup ?

  • 22-09-2005 9:59am
    #1
    beer enigma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,212 ✭✭✭


    I've just started working for a company that has one head office & three branch offices, but the network is dead slow. They currently run applications such as word from the main server in the head office via terminal services (XP remote connection), which doesn't sound the best method to me ! (I'm no network guru).

    All offices have 3072 kbps downstream & 256kbps upstream connections, so there should be plenty of bandwidth.

    Would'nt they be better off putting in some form of permanent connectivity between branches ??

    Thanks for any help

    Andi


Comments

  • #2
    Illkillya
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭Illkillya


    Yes, they would. Where is the company? Are you the IT guy? 3meg down is good but 256 up is not a lot.

    Permanent connectivity between the branches would allow for VOIP to begin with, which should save a fortune in phone calls. This would be possible even on normal DSL, but 256k upstream would not be good enough if there were a lot of users. Not to mention the remote desktop, filesharing and all that being totally improved.


  • #3
    beer enigma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,212 ✭✭✭beer enigma


    Thanks - I'm not the IT guy - they actually dont have one & rely on an outsource crowd to set it up or them, but having to connect via XP remote every time a branch wants to use MS Office, MUST take loads of resources ??

    They have plenty of office licences, so surely if they ran Office locally & stored the docs on the head office server via a better connection ?

    As I say, its not my field, but I was thinking of a kinda router/switch setup


  • #4
    Illkillya
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭Illkillya


    Ya, it would be more efficient to have Office on all the machines, with the user profiles stored remotely on a server which is backed up every night. The remote desktop is handy if you are travelling, then you can log into your Office from a netcafe and stuff.


  • #5
    beer enigma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,212 ✭✭✭beer enigma


    Thanks, they will never have a requirement for remote access, the system is purely used to maintain all home drives on the central server.

    3Mb seems a huge pipe for branches that only have 2 or 3 users on them, maybe using word/excel for a few hours a day max.

    So if I suggest they change, what sort of config do they need - just a switch or router configured to talk to the switch/router in the other office ??

    Sorry for dimbo questions, but as I say, I'm not an IT guy & the branches could well do with reducing the cost of the 3Mb pipe if they can


Advertisement